Analysis Of Rationality, Relativism And Religion By William James

Given that our will plays a role in determining our belief, James argues if we should embrace this as a fact of psychological life, or struggle against it.

In Stephen Prothero’s Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – and Doesn’t (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2008) 1 – 372, Prothero discusses how the American society was once a religiously literate nation, how we became religiously illiterate, and how (if willing) we can become religiously literate again. Prothero states that “this book argues for both the constitutionality and the necessity of teaching about religion in public schools and higher education.” He further explains that the main goal of this piece is to “help citizens participate fully in social, political, and economic life in a nation and world

In philosophy there are many theories that philosophers argue, James Rachels argues the main points of moral relativism, where he describes the differences within cultures. Philosophers attempt to prove their theories to be true, but it can be complicated because if someone proves one premise false of your argument then the entire argument is invalid. There are different types of relativisms that favor moral relativism, such as, personal belief relativism, societal belief relativism, and then there is the cultural beliefs argument. All of these topics of relativism fall into the same category as moral relativism, meaning they all have the same general statement. Which is one cannot declare what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral relativism is the umbrella term and the others are points that can affect it. Moral Relativism claims that there is no objective truth concerning morality, therefore no one can draw a line between what is right or wrong.

This will be based on the chapter 4 Religion as "Truth-Claims", posted on Blackboard. First of all, Dianne L. Oliver makes a preface about her writings saying that religions claim to get the truth, and followers of diverse religions say that their truth is the only one true, and cannot be compare with any other. Also, she remarks that many of those religion followers use violence to uphold their own version of truth. Moreover, she let us know that she is going to consider the "True-Claims" of different religions, and show how those claims can influence the practices, behaviors, and ideas of religion followers. Next to the introduction, she considers that religion is very essential for understanding the fundamental questions in our daily lives.

William James (1897), on the other hand, attempts to define the permissible cases in which it is intellectually respectable to believe without sufficient evidence. James (1897) begins by providing three criterion for judging beliefs: either beliefs are 1) living or dead; 2) forced or avoidable; or 3) momentous or trivial.

In “Reasonable Religious Disagreements,” Feldman discusses the role of intolerance and relativism in argumentation in regards to how epistemic peers who have a share of the same evidence reasonably maintain their own belief, all the while, maintaining that the other party of the disagreement is reasonable in their belief as well. This essay will concentrate on the benefits of Feldman’s observation and the benefits of critical thinking in argumentation as well as elaborate on the main reason as to why people so desperately agree to disagree in relation to media coverage.

No two people have the same Worldview, which is defined as “the framework from which we view reality and make sense of life and the world,” and this is specifically shown through the “Does God Exist” debate between Dr. Gordon Stein and Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Both men debated sophistically and articulately, and established their differing stances on the question: Does God Exist? Both Bahnsen and Stein verbalized their thesis’ and main points to support their claims. Ultimately, by the end of the debate Dr. Bahnsen covers all of the bases, which Dr. Stein failed to do; furthermore, Bahnsen’s points reinforce what we see in our Bible class regarding presuppositions.

The Will to Believe is a lecture that was presented by William James in 1896, it specifically defends that one can choose to believe in a religion without prior evidence of its truth. William James was a well-distinguished philosopher as well as a psychologist and a physician. He with a few other philosophers like Charles sanders Pierce and John Dewey were fundamental in establishing modern philosophy in America and are thought to be the founding fathers of pragmatism.

William James was an American psychiatrist and philosopher, born in 1842 and touted as the leader of the philosophical movement of Pragmatism and of the psychological movement of functionalism (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). James’ rebuttal to the Clifford’s Ethics of Believe, was the famed Will to Believe.

Relativism, defined by Rachel’s is the differentiation of cultural codes among societies, in respect to morality. Insofar the problem that is faced is whether or not there is a universal moral code all people can abide too? In explaining Rachel’s and Williams standpoint on Relativism and what they argue for, I on the other hand, will argue for relativism, in using some of Rachel’s views, in rejecting Williams conclusion of relativism. For Williams perceives no one outside of a society should impend on the social matters of a differing nation. To argue why his view is abstract, As well in many moral degrees, his philosophical conclusion could never be followed. For the axioms of morality are distinct, in varying situations, in which leads us to compare traditions, to see if they are right or wrong..

Professor Niebuhr views interfaith dialogue as a means to overpower the “absolutism” of fundamentalism in all faith traditions. And yet, these are exactly the people who are the most reluctant to participate in discussion with those of other faiths or even other Christian denominations.

In The Will to Believe, William James states a justification for faith when he revealed that at certain points, it is appropriate for our passions to influence certain situations; contrasting the skeptics’ viewpoint of choosing to suspend all judgement without exception. This method of calculated judgement is in response to Clifford, when he stated that “Belief is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements for the solace and private pleasure of the believer… it is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (James 308). Clifford believes that we have a duty to not allow ourselves to be fooled, because if we believe something that is untrue and pass it on we are simply returning to savagery. According to Clifford, we must suspend all judgement about absolutely everything that we don’t have concrete

In any discussion about religiously based discussion making, inclusionists and exclusionists represent contradictory viewpoints. Inclusivism means the use of religion as a basis for decision making in both the corporate and political environments. It implies that religious people have the right to make valid choices based on their beliefs and that leaders should be honest about the motivation of their activities, thus eliminating any deception and ignorance. Michael Perry supports this by saying: “….there’s no reason to exclude religious beliefs as a basis of political choice, even when no other basis is available”.

There are limits of rationality. “Rationality” goes hand and hand with “reason”. James Rachels, The Limits of Rationality, suggests that rationality is based off your full understanding of a subject. If you don’t fully understand the subject, how are you able to make a rational decision. In the reading, Rachels talks about how we are quick to judge based on the surface. Once you dig deeper, you fully think it over, you are more likely to have a greater view or understanding. The limits of rationality, are us as human beings, we are always able to question others, as if, our opinions or beliefs are greater. Then we hear them out and begin to process their beliefs and come to an understanding. We may not always agree with their views but that’s

Finally, we can see how William James takes an objective point of view from a few quotes in his book “The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy”. One of these quotes was, “ That is why I call pessimism an essentially religious disease.”Now although this may seem to go against his view of allowing people to believe their own thoughts, it is actually the contrary. This is because pessimism is essentially the belief of seeing things negatively or viewing things in a negative light. But, I thin this leads to the point in which William James says that religion is personal. Along with this, he stated, “Be not afraid of life. Believe