According to William James there are three forms of belief. The three being live, forced. or momentous. A live belief is one that comes from a place where all the options given for the belief were within the realm of possibility to the one making the decision to believe or disbelieve. An example of this for me, since it is dependent on the thinker, is “Be democratic or independent” Both options are feasible for me to believe and is therefore a live belief. Another form of belief, according to James, is a forced belief. A forced belief is one may have when there is no outside alternative other than the options given. An example of this is “Either you are atheist or you are religious.” There is alternate opinion available. You must be either atheist or religious in the context of the statement. Finally he proposes a third form of belief, a momentous belief. This is the form of belief that is made when you are given an option to which you have no similar opportunity. An example of this would be “Would you like to meet the President?” This is momentous as there are very few similar opportunities. Now this poses a question. Can a belief be all three kinds of beliefs. I believe the answer to this is. The belief in a religion or lack of a belief of religion is all three kinds. “Do I believe in a god or no god.” Are both feasible to me. It also is forced because outside of this question there is no outside alternative. There is either a god or no god. Finally it is momentous because the worship and belief of a god is momentous. There is no similar opportunity. This is the only opportunity of belief or lack of belief. James proposes that he has found an exception from Clifford’s standard of belief. In the eyes of James, Clifford’s standard is preposterous as he compares it to “a fear of being duped”(James). James proposes that being “duped” or making errors is not something completely horrible. In his opinion, it is better to be wrong than it is to live in fear of being wrong.
Do I agree more with Clifford or with James?
Personally, I agree more with James than I do Clifford. I can understand making a deep analysis of my beliefs before believing them, but this would lead to nothing but a lack of belief for everything. There is always a question that can’t be answered, which will always lead to the denial of whatever belief I am analyzing. I would rather hold a wrong belief than not believe anything. I do believe that a deep analysis is required for your beliefs, but there is a limit to how deep you should go. I believe that facts and truths should always be the basis of your beliefs, but for some it is okay if the only defense of the believe is peace of mind or happiness.
(501 words)
Daniel's Blog's 
Dude very interesting analysis! It’s very interesting that you think that we have to have deep understanding or analysis, and I agree to an extent. Yes when we vote, when we find the girl of our dreams those should take deep analysis. However when I eat a GOOD chocolate chip cookie I don’t sit in deep analysis or ponder for hours on whether its good, I mean I could, but really I taste it and if its soft and sweet, I think its good! Great Blog got me thinking for sure!
LikeLike
I like your examples that help to clarify the different kinds. I never would have thought of the “do you believe in god” example being able to occupy all three forms but I like it. Super original and helpful. I think your “I would rather hold a wrong belief than not believe anything” comment is very strong and interesting. At first I was surprised and disagreed but then I really thought about it and I think if it was a trivial belief, I might be okay with being wrong but I would definitely rather have no belief when it comes to serious topics. Thank you for your response. I found your examples helpful and insightful!
LikeLike