We Should Believe Without Proof
Every human being is different in her or his own way, whether it be their hair color, skin
tone, and especially, our opinions and own personal beliefs about the existence of God. Looking
at philosopher William James argument, “The Will To Believe,” he believes that there is nothing
wrong with believing in God without proof. Philosopher William Clifford’s argument, “The
Ethics of Belief,” argues that humans should not believe in God without sufficient proof.
Throughout this paper I will debate why James’ view is correct, as we are justifiable to believe in
God without sufficient proof.
James backs up his argument with three main reasons: (1) The question of religion
presents us with a “genuine
…show more content…
For example, having someone in your family who becomes gravely ill but then
survives may lead to start thinking God is real. Clifford back up his argument with two main
reasons: (1) It can lead to false beliefs and (2) We harm ourselves and society by making
ourselves credulous. He says that bad things can happen when we act on false beliefs and that it
is intrinsically undesirable to have false beliefs. He believes that hurting society involves us
becoming thieves and committing great evil against everyone and everything.
In Clifford’s article, “The Ethics of Belief, he tells of a story about a ship owner who was
about to let his ship set sail with passengers aboard. But he did not first inspect the ship to make
sure it was safe. The ship owner only thought the ship was safe and he figured that was enough
confirmation. However, the ship ended up not being safe and passengers were killed in the
wreckage. Clifford states, “Surely this, he was verily guilty of the death of those men … because
he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him.”1 The ship owner only
…show more content…
If Clifford
4 Clifford, The Ethics of Belief, 121
5 Clifford, The Ethics of Belief, 120
went around all day thinking he cannot do this or think that because he did not have proof, then
he would not have enjoyed life to the fullest.
I believe in William James’ view that we are justified in believing in God although there
is no sufficient evidence. Also, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that God does not exist
and that this world is a mystery. There is simply no evidence of God swaying either he is real or
fake. Yet, billions of people on this planet believe in God whole heartedly. Overall, this world is
a mystery because there are countless questions our human race cannot answer. Although we
have certain people who conduct tests and research, we still cannot always find the answer. It
could be destined that we should not know the answer, as some things are meant to remain
mysteries. For example, no one knows what happens when we die. Some people talk about a
heaven and hell after death, or reincarnation, or that we just no longer exist at all. Either way,
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
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.
There is a stark parallel between the Vietnam War and the circumstances under which life is maintained on Potrero Hill. The soldiers in Gods Go Begging are poor, uneducated, and trapped fighting in a war they do not support; the boys on Potrero Hill are also poor, uneducated, and unable to escape the war into which they were born. They are victims of their circumstances and their government. Some of the boys that Jesse meets in Vietnam are there because they were drafted. Unable to get a deferment, either due to a lack of funds or because no higher education establishment would accept them, boys are forced to go off to war. Others, like Mendez, fled to the United States in order to escape the violence at home that resulted from the United States’
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.
In William James” Lecture XX, conclusions” he has argued on various aspects of “Religion”. The whole concept of religion seems to be in accordance to the facts of mankind’s biological operation, still according to him its doesn’t makes it true. Universe itself has a very strong connection to religion of any kind. Nature of Universe is interconnected to human spirit and to the existence of God. James states that “Visible world is part of a more spiritual universe from which it draws its chief significance”, which means that Universe relationship with the religion can be seen through the connection of human and religion. Religion is practically all-inclusive foundation in human culture. It is found in all social orders, over a wide span of time. All the
The Question of God is divided into two parts. The first part, titled: “What Should We Believe” seeks to answer the first half of the questio...
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...
Blind faith is hard for many. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t
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
In order to be considered a non-evidentialist, one must believe that actual evidence is not required for all of our beliefs. Pascal believ...
Instinctually, humans know that there is a greater power in the universe. However, there are a few who doubt such instinct, citing that logically we cannot prove such an existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, wrote of five proofs for the existence of God. The Summa Theologica deals with pure concepts; these proofs rely on the world of experience - what one can see around themselves. In these proofs, God will logically be proven to exist through reason, despite the refutes against them.
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
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
God can be defined as a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions (1). There are many people that do not believe in any religion. People who do not believe in a religion have no reason for believing in a God. People who do not believe in a God and argue against the existence of God are proving something that is completely false. There is a God for numerous reasons.
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.