What Is Bonjour's Argument?

Vogel answers The Problem of Skepticism, through use of Inference to the Best Explanation. However, by using inference to the best argument to rule out the skeptical argument he overlooks that the skeptical argument is within itself an objection to inference to the best explanation.

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)

In Kelly James Clark’s Article “Without Evidence or Argument”, Clark argues that belief in God, does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. Clark’s argument is against W.K. Clifford’s article “The Ethics of Belief”, in which Clifford claims that everything must be believed only on the basis of sufficient evidence (139). Throughout Kelly Clark’s article he states many things that support his conclusion of belief without evidence or argument, however, my paper will only discuss what Clark says on p.139 starting with the paragraph “The first problem with Clifford’s…” and the following paragraph, ending with the words “...to see why.”

Arguments can be made out of just about anything. An argument has two sides, and conveying an opinion is one of those two sides. Arguments sort out the views of others and the support of those arguments represented by those people from past events. These events let others show their argument about what will happen in the future, and of how the future carries on today. Newspaper articles can be arguments, and laws being passed in Congress have a form of argument associated with them. There are many types of arguments that are presented in many ways. In Everything’s an Argument by Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz, information is given about three specific types of argument: forensic, deliberative, and ceremonial. Forensic arguments

For the purposes of this essay it is important to establish what is meant by a valid and a sound in relation to arguments. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines valid and sound in respects of philosophical argument. A argument is

almost polar opposite of reason is showed in the numerous philosophers he references in the

“Abortion is impermissible, because it deprives a being of a future like ours. Accordingly, it is morally similar to killing a healthy adult.”

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

406). You can’t have a conversation about theories with someone if there wasn’t reason. I also saw him use Principal of causality, “the principal of causality, for example-what is but a postulate, an empty name covering simply a demand that the sequence of events shall someday manifest a deeper kind of belonging of one thing with another than the more juxtaposition which now phenomenally appears” (Pojman and Vaughn, p. 406). I saw he used argument by example as well, especially in the following “It means that both Divinity Avenue and Oxford Street are called; but that only one, and either one shall be chosen” (Pojman and Vaughn, p. 409). Here he is giving an example of

The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

Feldman begins the introduction of his inquiry by identifying the importance of argumentation in critical thinking and epistemology. He states, “Epistemology is the abstract study of knowledge and rationality. Critical thinking, as I understand it, is a kind of applied epistemology, the underlying idea being that thinking clearly and carefully about any issue requires understanding and applying some fundamental epistemological concepts” (Feldman 1). He goes further to describe arguments as “tools for helping us figure out what it is most reasonable to believe” (Feldman 2). A good argument is an earnest exchange between different parties that are trying to establish an agreeable conclusion. It is for this reason that agreeing to disagree is fallacious. In a debate, the sole purpose is to challenge ideas and claims in order to come to the paramount and most logical conclusion. The function of deliberation is

In Perception, Knowledge and Skeptical Attack, Sextus Empiricus discusses motives for withholding judgment on arguments, rather than being persuaded by its conclusion (p 32). He does so by drawing a comparison between non-conclusive arguments that compose non sequiturs and do not fully ensure the conclusion and conclusive ones that ensure the conclusion. Despite offering varying levels of robustness, both argument types follow similar logical structures. That is, both forms can be derived from typical valid structures like modus ponens. For example, the claim “if the moon is made of cheese, then the Earth is 6,000 years old” follows the same structure as “if Socrates is a man, then he is mortal” such they can be abbreviated as PQ (11.152).

Bonjour explores the moderate empiricist view of a priori reasoning as contrasted by the rationalist view of a priori reasoning. He first describes the moderate empiricist view as “a priori justification limited to the consequences of definitions or meanings” (Bonjour 78). This view of a priori reasoning points out that as long as we understand the definition of the concepts embedded in the proposition, then there is sufficient evidence for the claim to be justified. In addition, the moderate empiricist holds the view that all meaningful knowledge stems from our sensory experiences. The rationalist view on the other hand, depends less on the understanding of the concepts, and more on concrete evidence. The rationalist holds the view that a priori justification is achieved through reason rather than experience.

Peter Klein argues that the Skeptic’s main argument is based off of a closure principle, and because of this either cannot be defended, because the closure principle itself cannot be defended, or the Skeptic’s main argument is guilty of virtually begging the question. Anthony Brueckner responds to Klein with five objections. I will be focusing on one of them, which argues that Klein’s reasoning for believing the Skeptic’s main argument virtually begs the question would also lead to the absurd conclusion that all Modus Tollens arguments virtually beg the question. E. J. Coffman attempts to respond by arguing that Bruckner’s objection is unsuccessful because it misconstrues Klein’s objection for dealing with the formal structure and not the content of the Skeptic’s main argument. Along side Brueckner, I will attempt to show that E.J. Coffman’s conclusion is false, and that Klein’s line of reasoning for the Skeptic’s main argument virtually begging the question commits him to the absurd conclusion that all Modus Tollens arguments virtually beg the question.

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.