Argument One
William James argues that religion beliefs aren't meant to be a resource of enlightenment nor a source of knowledge. Instead he believed that religion is just a way, or a tool. Used to provide ourselves with a sense of security and happiness. His work in The Will to Believe argues if one should accept these religious views without sustainable evidence.
In order to create a solid foundation for his argument he described us as having three types of options; Living or dead options, , forced or avoidable options, and momentous or trivial options. He tries to prove that people only truly have the freedom and opinion to make a choice, is if the option is Living, forced, and momentous. Living options should appeal to a personal
…show more content…
set of interests. For example, when asked if you would want to be a Christian or a Jehovah witness. The option would spark the interest based on your already pre determined set of religious beliefs. Forced options take away the choice to refrain, or avoid from choosing a particular side of the option given. For example, If I told a person to go to rob a store, or die. I’d create a logical dysfunction, forcing that person to choose. Thirdly, presenting someone with a momentous option would mean that the option has a certain uniqueness that makes it unlikely you'll be offered another experience similar to it. With that being said James continues his argument that there is no concrete evidence that justifies truth behind religion. He see the idea of religion as being broken into two parts: that the best things are the eternal things, and that you will be better off if you live in the moment and believe this. The idea of religion meets two of the priorly discussed options both Momentous though spiritual gain, and Forced because it seems as if it's impossible to avoid it. To believe it is untrue would take away from it being true. But for it to be a Living option it offers to many practical and theoretical explanations for it to be believable to a person who has a logical view. The freedom to believe in ideas that the mind cannot fully comprehend can only apply to living options. Counter Argument In response to William James argument, Philosopher W.K Clifford issued a counter argument in The Ethics of Belief.
Cliffords point of view towards religion. Is that even though we have beliefs, we are still morally responsible for the repercussions of acting on our beliefs due to lack of evidence. He backs his point of view with a example of a captain endangering his crew, because his beliefs caused him to not proceed with caution. Even if he did have the evidence and his beliefs lead him to tragedy he would still be equally as responsible. Cliffords point of view is that strong beliefs can shroud your judgement and with lack of evidence we shouldn't let it because it will effect your judgement when exploring …show more content…
facts. Because of this fatal flaw in judgement he believes that any blind faith.
For example, belief in god or any higher power without sustainable evidence is wrong. Cliffords argument unlike William James takes into account that we as people often collectively believe based on what society believes even while knowing that society or authority may be wrong. For Example, I believed that pluto was a planet, because that what society taught me. When experts told me this was not true without any research of my own, I willingly switched my point of view and undoubtedly sided with society. Although, clifford could argue that me following society's view on pluto as acceptable because i am not a expert and it may be the best i can do in extent of my resources. Compared to me following society knowing that the evidence is
fickle. Opinion In my opinion after analyzing both arguments Clifford's appealed more to my nature. His argument allowed the person to be held responsible for his or her actions. ‘“ And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.”(Clifford 62). I believe that he makes a valid point that we often blindly follow the view of society without question,. Many of us are guilty of at some point of still blantly believing the societal view of things while knowing the evidence is unsustainable. “To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” (Clifford 71). Our society plays victim to the bandwagon effect, meaning we attach ourselves to whatever trend or idea is popular at the time. In comparison to Clifford's, James argument, “a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there would be an irrational rule.” (James 77). Which in my opinion lacks sufficient ideas regarding to what extent should we exert his idea to the religious choices we have to make. His ideas to me, express that we should allow exceptions toward certain religious ideas. But to what extent?
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
	Living is about making choices. The choices people make shape their lives for better or worse. Even the decision not to choose has its effects, often not wanted. But the individual who chooses to make positive choices and to act accordingly is more likely to see his or her life reflect his or her beliefs and desires. Usually the individual who chooses to take action is also willing to face the risks and obstacles that such choices involve.
If this man wants to eat a cookie before dinner, he will eat the cookie simply because he chooses to. The cookie is irrelevant. He begins to form new values with his choice as the guiding force. No more blindly obeying codes previously laid down in the past, this man has see...
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
Religion, which is meant to enhance the faith of it followers, has done the opposite. The practices of religion have become overwhelmingly factual that the faith component of religion has vanished. In order to be a genuine beliver one must comprise an authentic faith. Both religious leaders and followers must realize that their religion is not factual, but sustained through faith. The key to the gates of heaven is faith, not facts.
For William James, his perspective on religious experience was skeptical. He divided religion between institutional religion and personal religion. For institutional religion he made reference to the religious group or organization that plays a critical part in the culture of a society. Personal religion he defined as when an individual has a mystical experience which can occur regardless of the culture. James was more focused on the personal religious experience, “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine” (Varieties, 31), and had a sort of distain for organized and institutional religion.
Blind faith is hard for many. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t
In conclusion, preference is truly free will that can lead to several paths in life. "Bartleby the Scrivener" led to misfortune, growing compassion and a comparison to God. The paths we choose in life not only impact us but those around us as well. "Fixed fate hands out misery and suffering to some and better fortunes to others, but where both good and evil are essential components to the scheme" (Patrick 53).
...between faith and reason but I think Clifford has a way more logical way of considering faith and belief in God than Pascal. Clifford offers a very sound argument for why it is important not to call pragmatic considerations justification for God, and also and argument for why it is so important that we have really good evidence when making justifications. I believe that both reasoning, and faith are required to believe in anything and that the reasoning side of the equation needs to be diligently and mindfully considered. I also believe that to find empirical evidence of God may be impossible, so it’s important that faith and belief are based on strong reasoning even without empirical evidence. Believing in something because it’s comforting in the will only cause a great deal of people to blindly follow and never ask questions leading to a very misguided society.
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
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
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.
In Chapter 1 of Keith Ward’s, The Case for Religion, Ward discusses Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s concept of the term “Religion” and his definition of the term and critically responds to it. In one of Smith’s own books, The Meaning and End of Religion, he discusses both his interpretation of the term “religion” and his opinion that the term should no longer be used. Smith’s skepticism of the term, together with his attempt at defining it, creates a contradiction that Ward critically unpicks and responds to.
... case in the present world in which we know given certain conditions person A would hypothetically engage in a morally evil action. It would no be impossible for God to create a world that were almost identical the present world, except that the person would then not engage in the evil. Since, to do so would deny him the freedom of individuality and his personality. That is, for God to ensure that he not engage in the evil would deny his freedom. The only other solution is for God to not create the world at all. He argues that for any world God could create, which included freedom, there is at least
" Religion is not just a social, cultural, political, or ideological factor; instead it finds its power in the personal chambers of the soul of the individual. Within the soul we discover the source of the private motivation that forms perceptions and behavior ( pg 7, Rediscovering the Kingdom)."