Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rationality of religious belief
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Rationality of religious belief
In this paper, I will argue why it is not necessary to have evidence in order for our religious beliefs to be rational or moral. Many people feel that in order for something to be true or rational, it must have evidence. People like this are known as evidentialists, and they argue that religious belief can only be justified with sufficient evidence. However, evidentialism is wrong. Classical foundationalism is the way of structuring evidentialist thinking. The core of classical foundationalism argues that beliefs can be based on other beliefs, which are known as basic beliefs. There are certain traits that a belief must have first before it is determined to be basic. In order for a belief to be basic, it must be incorrigible or self-evident. …show more content…
Reformed epistemology argues for the belief in things, including God, without sufficient evidence. The basis of this argument is that, as humans, we believe and accept many things without evidence. Under classical foundationalism, things such as our memory, our perception, and testimonies would be insufficient basis for beliefs because they are dubitable, and therefore not self-evident or incorrigible. However, reformed epistemology reminds us that we do trust and belle in things that lack evidence, and cannot be deemed basic beliefs. For example, we believe in the past, though we have no evidence of it, it is not incorrigible nor self-evident. Regardless, the past still exists. Plantinga also enforces the concept that our beliefs are innocent until proven guilty. This means that it is rational to hold a belief without evidence until evidence is discovered. The presence of our knowledge of religion or God is enough for us to base beliefs on. This way of establishing our beliefs on our intellect, according to reformed epistemology, is only discredited when we find evidence to disprove them. Given this school of thought, religious beliefs are totally rational and moral without evidence, because they are innocent and founded in …show more content…
What this means is that its structure can be applied to many different scenarios in hopes of justifying them the same way. For example, Clifford discusses a scenario in which a ship-owner is aware of dangerous damage to his ship which could potentially cause harm to others. He does not do anything about it, and as a result, the ship sinks and kills the people aboard. Reformed epistemology could be held responsible for this shipwreck, because it opens the door for believing things without evidence. Because reformed epistemology accepts beliefs without the need for evidence, people feel they can choose what they want to believe. In this case, the ship-owner had sufficient evidence of danger, yet he chose to believe otherwise. Reformed epistemology allows there to be a choice, which in part can cause people to act
...re some foundational beliefs that possess some degree of intrinsic justification, but as it was noted, accepting these beliefs as completely self-justifying is difficult to accept. Therefore, these foundational beliefs that possess a low degree of justification can rely on other minimally-justified beliefs for support, consequently creating a coherent foundation of sorts.
In this paper I will be discussing Pascal’s Wager. What I first plan to do in this paper is explain the argument of Pascal’s Wager. Next I will explain how Pascal tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in God. I will then explain two criticisms in response to Pascal’s argument. Finally, I will discuss whether or not these criticisms show Pascal’s reasoning to be untenable.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (" Hebrews 1:11" KJV). Seeing is believing is the thought that only physical or concrete evidence is convincing, and the fact of only accepting the truth if it is visible. Despite the discrepancy between perception and reality, seeing is not believing for various reasons. Seeing is not believing because of phenomenal, incomprehensible events and due to the fact of the composition of an illusion.
The approaches given by Pierce and Nagel to the epistemological questions of doubt and belief, though diverse in that they are strictly pragmatist and Cartesian, contain a similar underlying principle. They both serve to show that belief cannot come from any source that appeals to one’s feelings or purposes, experiences or impressions. Beliefs must arise from a non-personal means. Although this is a commonality between the two approaches in epistemology, they are greatly different arguments in their focuses. Pierce’s pragmatist approach surfaces along the lines of techniques people use to found their beliefs of reality, here assuming reality from the start, and using that as a foundation to delve into questions of the unknown. Nagel’s look at the Cartesian approach primarily doubts reality, and uses that as the grounds for the rest of his argument, asking how we can know anything beyond ourselves. These approaches lead to very different views on epistemology.
and that it can in fact be reasonable to hold a belief without sufficient evidence. Both
Reliabilism, an epistemological theory created to combat skepticism, claims that a person knows that p if and only if (1) p is true, (2) this person believes that p is true, and that (3) this person has come to the conclusion p via a reliable belief-forming process. A “reliable belief-forming process” could simply be a perceptive act, since reliabilism entails externalism. Externalism claims that you can have knowledge despite not knowing how you came about it (knowing the evidence), exactly. For example, imagine a boy sitting on the beach. He sees a woman walking past him no more than twenty feet away and forms the belief that there is a woman walking past him. Now, he many not exactly understand how he reached that belief, especially when it comes to cognitive processes involved, but nevertheless the fact that his perceptual processes worked reliably justifies his belief. Reliabilism’s analysis is also consistent with fallibilism, which claims that people can be incorrect in their beliefs and still be justified in their beliefs. Once again, consider the boy on the beach. His perceptual processes have consistently served him correctly; for these processes to fail and deceive him would be extremely unlikely, rendering his belief justified even if he were somehow wrong in his belief.
In order to be considered a non-evidentialist, one must believe that actual evidence is not required for all of our beliefs. Pascal believ...
Perry 's epistemological scheme was developed by William G. Perry, Jr. to show the system a student takes when learning a new concept. The idea is to learn to differentiate the rights and wrong with specific steps one takes to get to a good academic answer. The scheme is constructed of 4 categories: dualism, multiplicity, relativism and commitment. Each of the categories is different, yet they tend to show an intellectual development until reaching full commitment to a specific subject.
One of the strongest points Dr. Lennox presented that the both of us agreed on was his argument during the first thesis, “Faith is blind, science is evidence based”. During the discussion, Dawkins criticized the nature of faith, saying that it was blind as it was not supported with evidence like how science was. This argument is valid and is accepted by many as it is often used to deny the existence of God. However, Lennox argued that not all faith is blind faith. He stated that his faith in the Christian God is no delusion, it is rational and evidence based. He also added that if faith needed evidence, it would not be considered as faith in the first place. This statement bridges the gap between faith and evidence and it can be considered a winning rebuttal of this
The role of faith has been debated among many theologians, scientists, and philosophers. It has been greatly discussed and depicted throughout history as whether faith is logical when it comes to religion or whether faith is completely absurd. In this essay, I will focus on the role of faith through the lenses of Christian philosophers Sorean Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Faith plays an important role in Kierkegaard and Tillich theology; I will critically examine their depiction of faith and compare and contrast their passages. Kiergarrd view of faith is that it is completely absurd where as Ti
A Christian apologetic method is a verbal defense of the biblical worldview. A proof is giving a reason for why we believe. This paper will address the philosophical question of God’s existence from the moral argument. The presuppositional apologetic method of Reformed thinkers Cornelius Van Til and John Frame will be the framework. Topics covered here could undoubtedly be developed in more depth, but that would be getting ahead, here is the big picture.
Upon reading Will to Believe, there is no doubt we will all begin to question how we’ve gotten to our beliefs and why we believe what we do. William James argues against forced beliefs and expresses the importance of choice. The idea of choice is one I strongly agree with. Although we are easily influenced by others, when it comes to beliefs free will must come into play. As far as the science method, which I have discussed, a belief is just as valid whether there is evidence or not because most scientific methods will never be one hundred percent proven and they will change over
The purpose of this paper is to argue for the idea that even without a God, there can be a basis for morality. The structure of my argument will proceed as follows. I will begin my paper with the background information of the idea that without a God, specifically the Christian God, there is no moral basis. After detailing this false belief, I will go on to explain why it is indeed untrue due to various reasons. I will bring forth the conflicting views of St. Thomas Aquinas and the natural law theory before countering the arguments brought up by them.
In today’s modern western society, it has become increasingly popular to not identify with any religion, namely Christianity. The outlook that people have today on the existence of God and the role that He plays in our world has changed drastically since the Enlightenment Period. Many look solely to the concept of reason, or the phenomenon that allows human beings to use their senses to draw conclusions about the world around them, to try and understand the environment that they live in. However, there are some that look to faith, or the concept of believing in a higher power as the reason for our existence. Being that this is a fundamental issue for humanity, there have been many attempts to explain what role each concept plays. It is my belief that faith and reason are both needed to gain knowledge for three reasons: first, both concepts coexist with one another; second, each deals with separate realms of reality, and third, one without the other can lead to cases of extremism.
The argument that is used in the idea of skepticism has comparable and incompatible views given from Augustine and Al-Ghazali. Both monologues cover and explain the doubts one should have, due to the