Bertrand Russell, one of the most influential philosophers of the modern age, argued extensively in his book, “The Problems of Philosophy”, that the belief in inductive reasoning is only rational on the grounds of its intrinsic evidence; it cannot be justified by an appeal to experience alone (Russell 1998). Inductive reasoning refers to a form of reasoning that constructs or assesses propositions that are generalizations of observations (Russell 1998). Inductive reasoning is thus, in simple terms, probabilistic. The premises of an inductive logical argument provide some degree of support for the conclusion, but that support is in no way definitive or conclusive (Browne, 2004). Yet even if one agrees with Russell and concludes that there are no rational justifications for the principle of induction in and of itself, one can still maintain that there is a pragmatic justification for maintaining a belief in the principle. Simply put, there are still perfectly sound reasons for behaving as if the principle of induction holds true, regardless of whether or not the principle itself is rationally justifiable (Browne, 2004). This type of justification can be used across many of the belief systems that we as human beings hold, even stretching to the playing field of religion. In this paper I will outline not only why it is pragmatically justifiable to believe in the principle of induction, but also why it is equally as justifiable to believe in an infinite God, regardless of whether or not deductive reasoning provides us with definitive support for such conclusions.
Let’s begin by examining the issue of universal order and the Problem of Induction. The problem with inductive reasoning is that it is based on the assumption that ...
... middle of paper ...
.... Yet for our own happiness and peace of mind, we must believe that past occurrences, such as the sun rising yesterday and the thousands of days before that, provide us with perfectly good evidence for believing that tomorrow the sun will rise again. By the same token, we can rationally support a belief in God, even if we cannot provide conclusive evidence for His existence (or non-existence). These types of pragmatic justifications are, I believe, essential to the happiness and well-being of human beings. Regardless of whether or not the arguments for the merit and existence of both God and the principle of induction hold any water whatsoever, the optimistic approaches to the problems are in no way harmful. They allow us to live our lives in relative happiness, regardless of the fact that we ultimately can be certain of so little in the universe we live in.
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
In order to be considered a non-evidentialist, one must believe that actual evidence is not required for all of our beliefs. Pascal believ...
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
The thesis of the Epilogue comes from an unorthodox definition of faith and belief. Belief in the Cartesian World refers to something that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The key term in this definition
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.
forgiven, so there is no need to ‘force’ yourself to believe. This argument is far from proving the existence of God, it argues more for. the purpose of believing in him rather than whether he actually exists. The.. In conclusion, all the arguments bar one that have been covered have. been strongly criticised, questioning their validity.
Pascal’s argument “The Wager” says that it is more reasonable to believe in God than to not believe in god. There are many objections to “The Wager” argument, but William G. Lycan and George N. Schlesinger defend Pascal’s argument. This response will give a brief overview of Pascal’s wager and an overview of Lycan and Schlesinger’s argument while it is being evaluated.
What exactly is “truth”? And how do we arrive at the truth? Over these past weeks I have successfully be able to study two different but very closely linked methods of arriving at what we human beings know as truth. Introduced to the method of pragmatism by William James, I have concluded that pragmatism uses an approach in which reason is used to find what is true but what also has to be considered is that the truth is subject to change. Which distinguishes it from Rene Descartes' method of pursuing what is true. Essentially they follow the same procedures. Although at the final moments of my research, I began to find myself pro-pragmatism. I disbelieve Descartes claim that the mind believes everything that is perceived through the human eye which leaves no room for an imagination. Both James and Descartes differ in some areas while maintaing similarities in others. Whether its concerning the way their visions are presented, their interpretations of the truth, or how applicable the idea of it is to our lives.
This paper will dispute that scientific beliefs are not the right way to accept a belief and it will question if we should let one accept their rights to their own beliefs. In Williams James article Will to Believe, we accept his perspective on how we set and fix our beliefs. This paper will first outline his overview on the argument that someone does not choose their belief but rather one just has them. Following, it will outline my perspective on how we set our beliefs and agreement with purse. Then it will explain how other methodologies such as science cannot conclude to one’s true beliefs. Science has been seen as a way to perceive life and taken to consideration as the truth. This paper should conclude that humans define ourselves by
One of the most popular arguments for the existence of God belongs to St. Thomas Aquinas. In his “Five Ways” writing, Aquinas discusses five arguments for the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas uses what is known as a posteriori argument, which uses information from experience to form the argument. It is important to note that Aquinas was a strong believer in God to begin with, as he was Catholic. He is recognized as a Saint by the Catholic Church. His argument for the existence of God was controversial at the time of its writing, but is now highly regarded as the definite philosophical explanation of the Catholic faith. Aquinas felt that it was only necessary to have five arguments for the existence of God in order to prove his existence. The first way discusses the Argument from Motion. The second talks about the Argument from Efficient Cause. The third regards the Argument to Necessary Being. The fourth explains the Argument from Gradation, and the fifth is about the Argument from Design. For this paper, I am going to analyze Aquinas’ second way, the Argument from the Efficient Cause.
In the selection, ‘Skeptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding’, David Hume poses a problem for knowledge about the world. This question is related to the problem of induction. David Hume was one of the first who decided to analyze this problem. He starts the selection by providing his form of dividing the human knowledge, and later discusses reasoning and its dependence on experience. Hume states that people believe that the future will resemble the past, but we have no evidence to support this belief. In this paper, I will clarify the forms of knowledge and reasoning and examine Hume’s problem of induction, which is a challenge to Justified True Belief account because we lack a justification for our beliefs.
Six hundred years ago western culture adopted the general scientific model as an unproven assumed perspective. The general scientific model developed as a phenomenon of knowledge that could be tested and replicated by all. The general scientific model presents a foundation of perception upon which theories, assumptions, and most beliefs are based off. Only confined by human limitations, the general scientific model is perceived to have endless possibilities of achievable knowledge. According to the general scientific model there are simply four basic assumptions that base the key to all knowledge: every event has a cause, causes can be known, humans can discover the causes of events, and ignorance of causes is due to improper tools (Portko,
The first justification is functional: It is only logical that the future must resemble the past. Hume pointed out that we could just as easily imagine a world of chaos, so logic cannot guarantee our inductions. The second justification is that we can assume that something will continue to happen because it has always happened before. To Hume, this kind of reasoning is circular and lacks a foundation in reason. So what is wrong with this circularity? It seems that if you could justify inductive reasoning inductively, why then couldn’t people look into the future to justify the process of looking into the future to gain information? Or, using the very same “inductive” evidence that you have that counter-inductive reasoning does not work, why couldn’t a person using counter-inductive reasoning counter-inductively justify the counter-inductive method? Someone using inductive reasoning would draw from this the conclusion that inductive reasoning will always work better than counter-inductive reasoning, a person using counter-inductive reasoning would draw the opposite conclusion: that counter-inductive reasoning is now more likely than ever before to be more successful than inductive
The making of knowledge is the process in which personal opinion is fortified by pragmatic evidence. It is to my belief that, evidence is a keystone in the justification of truth, because it is something solid and concrete. Significance of evidence is also magnified by our society as we develop. In major areas such as: scientific investigations, judicial examinations, historical assessments and many other field of knowledge, the value of creditable evidence are strongly advocated. While evidence is a strong factor in eliminating doubts of knowledge, different types of evidence can also affect the reliability of the truth claim which it supports. The fine line dividing valuable evidence and unreliable proof has since been drawn and debated over from the first schools of thoughts to today’s broad fields of knowledge. Likewise, I will also call upon my own experience and understanding to draw my own line in the grey vicinity of this spectrum.
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.