Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and weaknesses of rationalism philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Kelly James Clark, who is a former Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College, wrote “Without Evidence or Argument” which is published in Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. The article starts off with the scenario of a stranger giving a man a note that his wife is cheating on him. However, there is no evidence and her behavior has not changed at all, how should he react? Does he take the note as complete truth and confront her or should he find security in the trust that he has built up with his wife over the past years together (Feinberg 138)? Clark uses this example, as well as others, to bring attention to the connection between significant beliefs and evidence. Furthermore, Clark goes on to state his …show more content…
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 …show more content…
Then he goes on to conclude by saying that, “The lessons learned from observing people and their beliefs support the position that I have defended: rational people may rationally believe in God without evidence or argument” (Feinberg 142). In schools today, students grow up listening to lectures that are subjective and then later are tested on what the teacher thinks and believes. Whether or not the taught perspective is factual or not, it teaches students from a young age to just take what the teachers, adults, and any authority says as truth, as a way to respecting authority. In the same way that it is reasonable to believe respectable authority, it is rational to have belief in God without specific evidence because we are created with the inclination that a higher being exists and God has shown Himself to be true to every generation. Furthermore, God has placed in every human the inkling to believe what is right or wrong, so when it comes to deciding whether to act a certain way, we can rely on our gut feeling if it is a good action or not. It is a very common and suggested thing to trust one's gut feeling when making a decision, even though it does not require any evidence to see if it is actually the right decision to
Now in the case of Schulz, she talks about the famous philosopher Descartes. He brings up the argument that “error does not arise from believing something that isn’t true, but believing in insufficient evidence” (362). Descartes wanted to be an ideal thinker and take in every bit of evidence he possibly could before drawing a conclusion.
Much of his argument rests on the nearly indisputable belief that if we, as a
In order to be considered a non-evidentialist, one must believe that actual evidence is not required for all of our beliefs. Pascal believ...
Of the various answers to this question, I'll start out with "faith cannot exist alongside doubt." The two ARE mutually exclusive. This goes with the fact that complete faith means just that. Faith means "complete confidence that a person or a plan etc" (according to WordNet). To us, to have faith you cannot doubt. One example of this would be when Owen keeps asking John whether or not the statue is there, even though he can't see it through the fog. John's only answer is "I just know it." Owen replies with "that's how I feel about God." Now, John's "belief" is based on the fact that he's seen the statue in this position before, and he reasons that it could not have moved since he last saw it. Owen takes it a step farther and calls it faith.
He also supports his argument that the Bible is true by claiming, if an individual believes what they are reading is true, then we are implying that we trust what it says. We learn to trust and believe in the God that the Bible tells us about, therefore, we trust the words written inside. He describes it as, “Perhaps the most important element in this mix is that we trust the Bible because we have come to trust the God about whom it tells us. The process of coming to this kind of trust moves in a kind of circle: we trust in that God in significant part because of what we learn in the
He is saying that, theoretically, the growth of reason would come with knowledge. People would be less inclined to have a lot of children because they would no longer be afraid of losing them to unnatural things. People would then be more inclined to focus on their happiness and expanding their
On the other hand, you could choose not to believe in God. If there is no God, then you are fine. You can sin all you like, you can allow yourself transgressions and forbidden acts, and the only punishments you will face will be those of this life. If, however, you lived thusly and there is a God, then you face an eternity of torture and unbearable misery. So, Pascal reasoned, one would do best to believe in God and act accordingly. That way, if you're wrong, the worst thing that could happen is that you were more pious and caring then you may have otherwise been. If you do not believe in God and you turn out to be wrong, the risks become terrifying.
Faith is in the heart and as has been said, the heart has reason which reason cannot understand. So if it were a fight over finding rationality, it would not be fully supported because finding the complete and total reason for faith will never be found.
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
Just because there is not evidence does not mean that is evidence he does not exist. I do not believe that people believe in god, just because they do believe that god exist, but because it gives them something that others cannot. It brings people together and gives people hope in the worst of times, and it can fill voids in peoples lives that are rather impossible to fill. It also gives them a reason to live, and live moral ones at that. However, this is also a problem in the discussion of th...
A piece of evidence that he gives is that reason cannot be the motive to moral action; if reason can't motivate any action, it ultimately cannot motivate moral
Blind faith is hard for many. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t
A piece of evidence that he gives is that reason cannot be the motive to moral action; if reason doesn't have the ability to motivate any sort of action, it ultimately cannot motivate moral
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
What if every belief you had, no matter how small it seems, can cause harm to others and corrupt the society, if your reasoning for holding that belief is not backed by sufficient evidence? This is what philosopher W. K. Clifford argues in, The Ethics of Belief. Clifford believes it is always wrong to believe in something with insufficient evidence. A belief with insufficient evidence is a principle that does not have indisputable or reasonable confirmation that prove it be true. His reasoning is, if one believes something with insufficient evidence, it can harm and corrupt others. If one harms or corrupts another, then they are doing something wrong. One believes something without insufficient evidence, therefore they are doing something wrong.