This section provides us with two selections from the essays of William K. Clifford (1845-1879) and William James (1842-1910). Clifford's essay, The Ethics of Belief, is based on the concept of evidentialism. This concept 'holds that we should not accept any statement as true unless we have good evidence to support its truth'; (Voices of Wisdom, 346). James wrote his essay, The Will to Believe, as a response to Clifford's essay where he endorsed a philosophy called pragmatism.
Pragmatism is described in the book as a method for settling philosophical disputes. It is based on the pragmatic theory of truth. This theory says that a 'proposition p is true if and only if the belief that 'p is true' works'; (Voices of Wisdom, 346). In order to get a better understanding of the pragmatic theory of truth, the theory is contrasted against two other theories, the correspondence theory of truth and the coherence theory of truth. James disagreed with these theories because 'they present truth as a static property existing prior to and independent of human experience and investigation';. James viewed truth as a constant movement of ideas, which guide human beings into more and more satisfying experiences every time.
Clifford holds that you should not believe any proposition just because it will give you eternal happiness when in fact there is a lack of evidence which should lead you to doubt the proposition. James, on the other hand, gives us three conditions to believe beyond evidence. 'First, when you are confronted with what he calls a 'genuine option' that cannot be decided on evidential grounds, you have a right to decide the issue according to your 'passional nature'. Second, when faced with a situation when belief in a fact is necessary for the existence of that fact, you have the right to believe beyond evidence. And finally, in a situation when belief in a true proposition is necessary for getting at the evidence in support of its truth, you are entitled to believe'; (Voices of Wisdom, 347). In that last quote James tells us that we are entitled to use our feelings and/or our faith in order to resolve a matter.
First we take a look at an extract of William K. Clifford's essay where he presents us a few situations in order to clarify his point. He starts by telling us a story of a ship-owner that was providing transportation for a group of emigrants. He knew...
... middle of paper ...
...g beyond evidence are acceptable from my point of view. These conditions bring into consideration human nature. They allow your feelings and emotions to get involved in the decision-making process which are very hard to margin. Your soul is allowed to participate as well we he tells us that it is ok to belief in order to find evidence. He allows the human being as a whole to participate in an option.
On the other hand William K. Clifford is too vague on his approach to life. He is very conservative from what I could see. He is inclined to the things he can grasp in order to find evidence but then doubts whatever he finds. I don't like the fact that he doesn't establish a set of rules or parameters for his way of thinking. His stories portray his reasoning very well but maybe the fact that he uses these examples doesn't help me see the whole concept. James does give us his options and conditions, which lets see where he is taking us. James's bold approach to the options we face in our lives show a true desire and love for life that I can identify with. I personally like to face the unknowns and learn the truth of them instead of preventing a mistake that might arise from doing so.
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.
Unknown, to James at this point he did not realize that he was having a problem with a psychological theory called behaviorism. Now this theory is one that is saying human behavior is developed through learning experiences which in this case would apply to James. His behavior as an adult was reflected by the way he was treated as a kid by his father and mother because they fought all the time. They never truly paid any attention to him, which in terms taught him how to stay out of their way and learn how to steal and burglarize places without getting caught. Therefore, within the psychological theory of behaviorism Behaviorists saw crime as something that is a learned response to life’s situations such as James situation which led him to a life of crime because of his parents. Although, he was never truly mistreated, he did not receive his father attention due to the fact of the way his father was treated as a child growing up an abusive household. Therefore, he did not want to place his son in the same situation. There is also the fact that James could be suffering from the psychodynamic theory which says that a person’s personality can be controlled by their unconscious mental process and that is grounded in them in early childhood. These entire things such as the id, ego, and superego
Clifford’s claims. Clifford believes that everything must be believed only on the basis of sufficient evidence, including belief in God (Feinberg 139). Clark’s issue with this statement, is that Clifford emphasises that adequate evidence is necessary for all beliefs and in every circumstance (Feinberg 139). Personally, I do not think it is necessary to hold every belief to the same standard of evidence because of the existence of faith and the fact that not everything has to be seen to exist. In John 20:29 it says, “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (NIV Bible). In this passage, Jesus is saying that believing without the visual evidence is particularly harder than having the evidence, but more importantly, it is possible and blessed. Additionally, in 2 Corinthians 5:7 it reads, “For we live by faith, not by sight” (NIV Bible). It is important to notice that in this verse it does not say that we only live by faith and not by sight when it comes to belief in God, but instead we can in every area of life. One reason why we live by faith and not by sight or complete evidence is because it is more practical because as humans we have limited knowledge about the vastness of the universe and every individual thing. Furthermore, in conjunction with Clark’s example against Clifford, it would not
William Clifford author of the “Ethics of Belief” creates the argument that it is always wrong for anyone to believe anything upon ‘insufficient evidence’. What does Clifford define evidence as and what is sufficient? Clifford’s argument is more scientific. Basing our beliefs off methodical approaches. If we base all our decisions off sufficient and what we declare to be reliable then what do we stand for? We have our own credentials to believe things even if we do not know why. These beliefs could be innate and
We have learned our own individual personality can drive our sense of direction. The choices James made during his childhood where not his fought, he did not have the parental guidance during his developmental stage. Amazingly, he conquered all to obstacles to become successful.
For centuries it has been debated whether Paul and James contradict each other’s theology. At times, they do seem to make opposing statements. The Book of Galatians affirms over and over that we are justified by faith in Christ alone, not by works of our own. Most evangelical Christians agree to that concept of sola fide. We are faced with an interesting dilemma when James famously says, “faith without works is dead.” Martin Luther, himself, felt that the Book of James should be removed from the canon of scripture because of such statements. When one looks at the context of these verses, we realize that the theology of both books complement rather than contradict each other. Although they both deal with the relationship between faith and
In the article, "The Will to Believe", William James responds to W.K. Clifford who argued
John Locke's, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), was first criticized by the philosopher and theologian, John Norris of Bemerton, in his "Cursory Reflections upon a Book Call'd, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," and appended to his Christian Blessedness or Discourses upon the Beatitudes (1690). Norris's criticisms of Locke prompted three replies, which were only posthumously published. Locke has been viewed, historically, as the winner of this debate; however, new evidence has emerged which suggests that Norris's argument against the foundation of knowledge in sense-perception that the Essay advocated was a valid and worthy critique, which Locke did, in fact, take rather seriously. Charlotte Johnston's "Locke's Examination of Malebranche and John Norris" (1958), has been widely accepted as conclusively showing that Locke's replies were not philosophical, but rather personal in origin; her essay, however, overlooks critical facts that undermine her subjective analysis of Locke's stance in relation to Norris's criticisms of the Essay. This paper provides those facts, revealing the philosophical—not personal—impetus for Locke's replies.
James, W. (2009, May 8). The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Will to Believe, by William James. Retrieved from The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/26659/pg26659.txt
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
This essay attempts to capitalize on Goldman 's “What is justified belief?” to form an opinion about his ideas. Goldman makes a break from traditional views of knowledge to form a theory of externalism. He gives the reader a new point of view for observing the relationship between knowledge and justification. The following passage will weed out some important aspects of his theory and how they relate to his theory as a whole.
James was an authoritarian parent. He was controlling, in-charge and no one questioned him. He would play the role of the doting father. When his children made mistakes, he made a point to criticize them. He often compared them to other kids that he felt were “more perfect.” When his often unspoken expectations were not met he would yell and scream striking fear into his entire family. “He’s not a warm, fuzzy kind of guy, and he’s not going to inspire feelings of intimacy. But when his system works, he can boast about one thing: His recruits tend to obey” (Dewar).
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
James, William. "Pragmatism." Columbia University, New York. January 1907. Lecture. Web. 24 Feb 2012.< http://www.authorama.com/book/pragmatism.html>
Some of the objections, such as the ones made by Edmund Gettier, claim that three conditions are not nearly enough to justify a true belief, and that at the very least a fourth must be added. Gettier presents a very valid criticism of the JTB theory of knowledge, and his counter examples highlight flaws in the JTB theory that make it an inadequate theory of knowledge. Gettier claims takes an issue with the third part of the JTB theory, which states that proposition P must be true. Gettier makes the interesting observation that person S may very well be justified in believing in proposition P even if P is false