lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Ch. 10 Hindson - notes
Introduction to Christian Thought (D) (Liberty
University)
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Everyday Biblical Worldview
Section 2
Philosophical Worldviews
10Pragmatism: Whatever Works
Pragmatism is a relatively newly popularized philosophy, but it is more influential than many think. In
fact, it can be argued that pragmatism is actually an ancient philosophy, as old as the world.
Pragmatism, in essence, is the philosophy that suggests that “whatever works” is the right choice. This
sort of logic is used every day. If your tire is flat and you have to change it on the side of the road, you
would not use an eighteen-millimeter lug wrench to remove a twenty-millimeter lug nut from the
wheel. Practically, the twenty-millimeter lug nut is the right choice, because it works. Another example
could be the route chosen to drive to work. If there is a lot of traffic on the highway, then it may
practically make sense to take the back roads. Even our choice of cleaning supplies demonstrates this
sort of pragmatism. Why would anyone buy a window cleaner that doesn’t work well if they can buy
one that does? Why buy the same product for more money in one location if you can buy it for less at
the store down the street? In this sense, pragmatism is a part of everyday life.
Pragmatism as a philosophy, however, is totally different. Pragmatism as a philosophy takes these small
examples and extends them to moral situations and universal implications. Pragmatism suggests that the
most practical thing is also the truest thing. In other words, truth, meaning, and values are derived from
“whatever works.” Nothing has a fixed value; all truth is dependent upon the given circumstances.
William James, though not the originator of pragmatism as a philosophy, is largely responsible for
developing and popularizing it. He writes:
The pragmatic method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be
interminable. Is the world one or many?—fated or free?—material or spiritual?—here are notions
either of which may or may not hold good of the world; and disputes over such notions are unending.
The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical
consequences. What difference would it practically make to anyone if this notion rather than that
notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean
practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to
show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other’s being right.[32]
Essentially, pragmatism ignores truth as an absolute, seeing it rather as entirely dependent upon the
result of a decision. In Christianity, for example, certain sins may actually seem to be practical, so instead
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
of judging sins against the Word of God, sins are judged against the practicality of an outcome. Of
course, there are many moral questions that surface within this philosophy. Ultimately, it is a dangerous
idea to take the same method of choosing which cleaning supplies to buy and extend it to moral choices
with perhaps eternal consequences. Yet this is exactly what pragmatism does.
The Birth of Pragmatism
Most consider pragmatism to have begun with Charles Sanders Pierce in the second half of the
nineteenth century. Pierce was a scientist by trade but wrote extensively on philosophical matters.
These writings largely developed into pragmatism. Interestingly enough, the very philosophy Pierce
fathered began to deviate from what he felt was true pragmatism. Pierce believed the word
“pragmatism” had been misused so much that the true essence of the philosophy had been lost. (In the
early twentieth century, Pierce coined the word “pragmaticism,” that would only be used for his
philosophy, distinguishing it from what he believed was misconstrued pragmatism.)
Though pragmatism originated with Pierce, William James truly deserves the credit for popularizing and
developing it into the philosophy as it is now understood. Initially, James was recognized as a great
influencer. Some suggest he is the father of modern psychology. This was before Freud and Jung made
their vast contributions to the field. Though James was brilliant in psychology and instrumental in
starting the field of American psychology, he is most remembered for his work with pragmatism.
Pragmatism: Science Meets Philosophy
Considering that the background of Pierce was in science and mathematics, and that the background of
James was in medicine and psychology, it is no surprise that pragmatism sprouted from these two men.
Philosophy, historically, had not been separated from the sciences. Philosophy was as much a science as
science was a philosophy for much of the world’s history. However, during the Renaissance and
Enlightenment, the two became two distinct fields. Science birthed the scientific method. With the
scientific method came the idea that empirical evidence establishes truth, and if something cannot be
proven empirically, it cannot be true. Naturalism was birthed from this, with the suggestion that since
the supernatural cannot be proven, it is not real. Truth in the scientific world rested upon facts and that
which could be proven. What could not be proven could not be true.
Philosophy, on the other hand, had emerged as its own distinct field that dwelt in the realm of the
unknown, or often in the realm of what may be possible. Rather than resting on proven facts, philosophy
rests in the realm of reason and speculation. Whereas science tests hypotheses to prove them true or
false, philosophy speculates on issues that cannot be scientifically tested. Science lives in a black-and-
white world, while philosophy resides in a gray one.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
The two fields were both seen as invaluable during the Enlightenment, yet they were regarded as very
much distinct. Consider, for example, the question “Why are we here?” Philosophy answers this
question by attempting to understand the purpose of life. Science answers this question differently.
While philosophy looks for the purpose or meaning of why humans exist, science attempts to answer
the question, “How did we come to be?” Rather than exploring the purpose of mankind, science
explores the origin of mankind. Both disciplines seek to solve the same mystery, but due to the methods
each field employs, they interpret the question differently and thus arrive at different conclusions.
Pierce and James saw a huge disconnect between the two fields and wondered what would happen if
the security and “fail-proof” nature of science, in regard to empirical evidence, could be transferred to
philosophy. In other words, the question was posed, “What if the scientific method could be adjusted to
philosophical arguments in such a way that philosophy could actually arrive at an answer rather than a
speculation?”
Pragmatism was the merging of science and philosophy. Perhaps the only reason this was not done
before was that philosophers usually posed questions to which there is no absolute answer. Yet
pragmatism, in short, provides only temporary absolutes. Consider this story from William James to
explain:
Some years ago, being with a camping party in the mountains, I returned from a solitary ramble to find
everyone engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel—a live
squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of the tree-trunk; while over against the tree’s opposite
side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by
moving rapidly around the tree, but no matter how fast he does, the squirrel moves as fast in the
opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse of
him is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: DOES THE MAN GO ROUND THE
SQUIRREL OR NOT? He goes round the tree, sure enough, and the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go
round the squirrel? In the unlimited leisure of the wilderness, discussion had been worn threadbare.
Everyone had taken sides, and was obstinate; and the numbers on both sides were even. Each side,
when I appeared, therefore appealed to me to make it a majority. Mindful of the scholastic adage that
whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction, I immediately sought and found, as
follows: “Which party is right,” I said, “depends on what you PRACTICALLY MEAN by ‘going round’ the
squirrel. If you mean passing from the north of him to the east, then to the south, then to the west, and
then to the north of him again, obviously the man does go round him, for he occupies these successive
positions. But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then on the right of him, then
behind him, then on his left, and finally in front again, it is quite obvious that the man fails to go round
him, for by compensating movements the squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned away. Make the
distinction, and there is no occasion for any farther dispute. You are both right and both wrong
according as you conceive the verb ‘to go round’ in one practical fashion or the other.[33]
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Though a strange story, this serves to make a point of what pragmatism truly does. It defines theories as
absolutes and then suggests the outcome of it. Whichever outcome is the best or most desired becomes
the truth. In this case, pragmatism asked, “What do the words ‘go round the squirrel’ truly mean? Does
it mean reaching a particular part of the tree (cardinal directions) before the squirrel? Or does it mean
actually being faster than the squirrel and passing him?” The answer can only be determined by defining
absolutes. Then the truth can be found.
Yet this is also one of the pitfalls of pragmatism. By defining absolutes, truth, values, and meaning are
stripped of absolutes. All of this lies in the subjective hands of pragmatism, because the person can now
determine what is most practical. Taking the example of the squirrel again, James did not truly solve
anything. He only pointed out that there were two different definitions within the two groups that had
practical consequences as to the answer. In science, there must be absolutes to work toward an
absolute answer. Yet in philosophy, there are not necessarily absolutes. Thus, for pragmatism to work,
there must be absolutes, but the individual is free to choose them.
For example, consider two people who are asked the question “What does it mean to live a richer life?”
One person is homeless and the other is a billionaire. They both choose absolutes in how they define
“rich.” The homeless person may suggest that “richer” means having more money. The billionaire has
more money than he even knows what to do with, and thus may answer that a “richer” life is one with
more meaning or with a close family. Both chose absolutes and worked in the realm of absolutes, yet
they both chose a different absolute. This is the weakness of pragmatism. The pragmatic philosophy
works when absolutes are applied, but the absolutes are subjective to each person, creating a scientific
contradiction.
The Pragmatic Method
Philosophy has often remained in the realm of dialogue, presuppositions, and treatises. Pragmatism did
not veer from this, but it did add one thing to it: a method for solving problems. Just as the scientific
method determines what is false and what is true in absolutes, so does the pragmatic method. The
pragmatic method, as demonstrated in the story of the squirrel, is the attempt to interpret what is true
by extrapolating back to the theory’s practical consequence. James often asks, “What difference would
it practically make to anyone if this notion rather than that notion were true?” This idea can be traced
back to Charles Pierce, who argued that a person’s beliefs are not just theoretical or abstract thoughts,
but are truly the rules by which a person lives. If a person believes in God, then the Bible becomes the
guide to life. If a person believes that money will bring ultimate happiness, then that person will be
guided by this thought. Thus, all beliefs have practical consequences. Pragmatism tends to work
backward more than most philosophies. Rather than believing something and then experiencing the
effect it will have on life, it instead determines what sort of effects you want a belief to have on your life
and then chooses a corresponding belief accordingly.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Again, the philosophy falls short here. Pragmatism suggests that we determine what outcome we want
and then adopt the philosophy or beliefs that will provide the best “guide” to get us there. Yet to even
choose an outcome is to be influenced by beliefs. If we choose the desired outcome to have a family,
before even choosing a philosophy, we have already employed one. A chosen desire is the result of
what we believe will make us happy. Of course, the pragmatic method may cause someone to adopt a
different lifestyle, but ultimately, no choice can be made without some sort of belief being employed.
Pragmatism and Christianity
Pragmatism has seeped into the Christian realm in many influential ways. The Christian faith is often
relegated to what is practical rather than what is to be believed. Application is king in many sermons and
Bible studies today. Of course, obedience and faithfulness are desired. Yet these come as a result of
what we believe. Just as pragmatism has transformed the marketing of most industries (“Our laptop is
the easiest laptop to use;” “Our drive-thru is the fastest;” or “Our cleaning product requires minimal
effort”), it has transformed many churches too. As people look for the easiest, fastest product that
requires the least effort, so too do people look for the church that has the shortest or most convenient
worship services, demands little effort from its members, and provides programs geared toward them.
This ecclesiology is inwardly focused—and pragmatic—yet many churches fall prey to it.
Following Jesus is not always pragmatically beneficial. It was not practical for Paul to be shipwrecked,
bitten by a snake, beaten several times, and ultimately killed for the sake of Christ; yet it was the life he
chose. It is not practical to go without a meal so that another person who is hungry may be fed. It may
not be practical to go to a church that demands a lot from its members in attendance, giving, and
service. Yet biblical truth is not determined by pragmatic consequences; truth is always determined by
the Word of God. We should be wary of any church or ministry that uses pragmatism as the basis for
reaching new people or keeping current members satisfied. Church is not a consumer product
searching for customers, but a family for those who follow Jesus and seek to live for him.
