§ 3. Variation in the Relative Importance of the Subjective and Objective Factors of Belief. — There are, then, two factors which cooperate in the formation of belief,—one subjective, and the other objective. Neither of these factors is sufficient by itself; both must be operative. But their relative importance may vary greatly. The keen urgency of practical needs may make it necessary to come to a decision where objective data are scanty. He who climbs a cliff to escape death by drowning must use whatever foothold presents itself, though he would never have trusted to it without pressing motives. So where there is a practical need to form a belief, because indecision would paralyse activity, the mind must rest on whatever objective indications or suggestions it can find, however slight these may be. On the other hand, where there is no interest to be satisfied, there will be no tendency to form a belief. The mind will occupy itself only with those questions which lie in the line of direction of its own activity.

The influence of the subjective factor is the more prominent and dominant, the more primitive is psychical development in general. Primitive beliefs are nearly all relevant to the narrow circle of immediate practical interests within which the activities of the savage are confined. Wherever these interests are involved, they take shape in a body of belief often resting on what appear to us extremely frail objective foundations. The primitive mind does not concern itself, or only slightly concerns itself, with questions which fall outside the range of its narrow circle of practical interests. But increasing knowledge finds relevancy where ignorance fails to find it. Thus in neglecting whatever does not obviously relate to immediately engrossing needs, the primitive mind must neglect much which is really relevant to them. Hence, in the formation of belief, data of the utmost importance will be ignored because their relevancy is hidden and cannot be made apparent without patient mental effort. Thus the narrower is the circle of interests, the greater is the predominance of the subjective factor, because the mind is blind to objective data which do not obviously connect themselves with its immediate aims and tendencies.

Besides constituting the impelling motives for the formation of belief, the subjective factor also contributes to determine the nature of the beliefs which are formed. When a negative judgment would paralyse activity, the active tendency is a force arrayed on the side of the positive judgment, and vice versa. If a certain ideally represented combination presents itself as the only condition, or the most favourable condition, of attaining a certain end, the active tendency towards this end is of itself a tendency to believe in the ideally represented combination. If denial of this is tantamount to sacrificing a cherished aim, the whole strength of desire helps to enforce the affirmative side. Thus persons of vigorous and courageous temperament are apt to believe what they wish to believe. Indeed this is sometimes stated as a maxim holding good of human beings in general. Tarde creduntur, quae credita laedunt, says Ovid; but we must not push this view too far. Where the general mental attitude is one of fear, or timidity, or gloomy suspicion, it does not hold good. Fear or timidity or gloomy suspicion favours belief in disagreeable alternatives. Where the tendency is not to face and fight difficulties and dangers, but to evade and escape them, action will be most effectively guided by taking the most unfavourable view of the circumstances. Even if an alarm is false, it is better to be on the safe side. There is much in the religious superstitions of savages which shows manifest traces of this influence of fear upon belief.

It should be clearly understood that the distinction between the subjective and the objective coefficients of belief is not a logical but a purely psychological distinction. Whatever condition controls and limits subjective activity, so as to enforce one way of thinking, and to make other ways difficult or impossible, is from the psychological point of view an objective coercion. It may be that the control thus exercised does not really proceed from the nature of the object as known to more highly developed minds. Logical analysis from the point of view of higher knowledge may show that what is operative is some association of ideas, which, though it may be vivid and insistent, is none the less casual and irrelevant. But for a mind which is unable to recognise it as casual and irrelevant, the coercive power of the association must appear as if it proceeded from the nature of the object represented. The words "casual" and "irrelevant" imply that a systematic view of objective relations has already been formed, and that this system excludes the connexion of things or events suggested by the association which is called irrelevant and casual. But a mind which has not attained to this systematic view cannot distinguish between control really proceeding from the nature of the object, and control proceeding from what is recognised at a higher standpoint as a merely subjective connexion of ideas. Hence savages appear to us to confuse objective with Subective necessity. Any association between A and B through which the idea of A vividly and insistently calls up the idea of B may lead to a belief in a real connexion between them. If in a fit of anger we trample on a man's portrait, it is difficult for the moment to avoid believing that we are by the act doing the man himself a direct injury. The savage has a real and permanent belief that men can be injured in such ways. He thinks, for instance, that by destroying a man's footprints he can spoil his journey or make him lame. So the Chinese believes that by hanging up in his house ancient coins he secures for himself the protective influence of the spirits of the emperors under whom the coins were issued. Such instances are innumerable. There is nothing in the beliefs thus formed which is at variance with the preformed system of beliefs. On the contrary they are in full harmony with this. Hence subjective interests together with vivid and insistent associations of ideas exercise unresisted control.

One main reason why the subjective factor is more dominant in primitive thought is that the preformed body of belief is comparatively small in extent and imperfectly organised. A body of belief is more fully organised in proportion as the denial of this or that combination of ideas which enters into its composition involves a greater and more destructive alteration in the whole system. Savage beliefs are not woven into a unified whole to nearly the same extent as civilised beliefs; hence the influence of the objective factor is smaller. For the influence of preestablished convictions in determining the credibility or incredibility of new suggestions is in its nature objective. However the old beliefs have been formed, and whether they are true or false, they are affirmations or denials of real existence. Whatever is rejected because of its inconsistency with them, and whatever is accepted because its denial would be inconsistent with them, is accepted or rejected because it is felt to be implied in or excluded by the constitution of the real world. Thus the influence of the objective factor develops as the general body of belief grows in extent and becomes more highly systematised.

In this process, when it is carried far enough, truth must be the gainer; for error cannot ultimately be made self-consistent. But in relatively early stages of the process the result is to a large extent of an opposite kind. Beliefs shaped in ignorance under the pressing urgency of practical needs help to produce new beliefs, and give rise to an organised system of error, so that the united force of the whole resists interference with any part of it.