Faith: An Analysis Of Reason And Faith By Clifford

Sometimes when we hear the word justification we find it accompanied by other “ation” words: sanctification, glorification, propitiation, regeneration and imputation. These words are from time to time used interchangeably. This can be confusing and needs to be clarified before continuing. Imputation is where credit has been given. It can also mean to lay responsibility on someone. With God, imputation is where He accounts righteousness to the believer. Sanctification is separate from justification. Justification is about one’s position with God; sanctification is about one’s spiritual condition. Propitiation is defined in “Reformation tradition as the satisfaction of divine wrath upon sin”. Regeneration is the creation of a new heart and new spirit. This change of heart and spirit is what allows us to live righteous lives. Glorification comes once we receive our heavenly reward. It is the completion of our salvation.

How is the term justification defined by scholars? What is your own definition based on your research?

Christianity treads a delicate delineation between faith and reason. At times, the two seem mutually exclusive. During the early stages of Christianity, church fathers argued about the roles of Athens and Jerusalem in Christianity. Some, like Tertullian, insisted Christianity consisted solely of Jerusalem, or faith alone. Others, like St. Augustine and Clement of Alexandria, argued that all truth stems from the character of God, and is thus viable to the Christian. They united Athens and Jerusalem, reason and faith. The interplay of faith and reason shines brightest through the work of Thomas Aquinas, who, like Augustine, believed faith and reason play an intertwined role in revealing truth.

In verse 15, Paul writes, "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners" Paul seems to be telling his gentile reader that the Torah has no bearing on their salvation. I feel that he purposely or inadvertently gives the law merit more merit than intended by suggesting that Jews are not sinners because they received the law. He draws a distinction between himself and "the gentile sinners" yet he is telling his audience that the ways, some of which are still a part of his own way of life, are irrelevant. He seems to almost make a separation of culture and religion. He seems to be saying that the rectitude of the Jews dates from birth, because the Jewish religion is a part of their culture. Peter claims to

In his article “The Ethics of Belief (Clifford, 1877) W.K. Clifford sought to argue that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (as cited on p190). The aim of this essay is to establish whether indeed this view offered by Clifford, when considering religious faith, is convincing. In order to do this I will consider the arguments that Clifford put forward, including that which to believe anything based upon insufficient evidence always does harm and so is wrong. Such a statement is in direct opposition to those religious believers who regard their blind faith as a virtue and for whom evidence is something that is

In W.K Clifford’s Essay he states that “It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” This argument is not totally wrong but does have some problems to it. In Clifford’s essay he explains a scenario with a ship owner and someone who he will be sending out to the sea. The ship owner does no believe the ship to be good enough, ready enough or in other words sea worthy to be sent out to the sea. Instead of checking the ship to see if it is ready to be sent out to the sea because it Is time consuming, he decides to send the ship out anyway. In the end, the ship ends up sinking in which case, Clifford considers to owner to be guilty of the ship sinking because he should have believed that ship

In this paper, I hope to effectively summarize W.K Clifford’s (1879) argument on the ethics of belief, followed by a summary of William James’ (1897) argument on the right to believe, and finally, provide an argument for why W.K Clifford’s (1879) argument is stronger by highlighting its strengths while simultaneously arguing against William James’ (1897) argument.

Faith and reason can be viewed as opposites. Faith is an element of belief, something an individual does not necessarily require a reason for accepting without reason. For example, an individual’s reason for believing in God may not seem too rational when they are trying to explain them. They may not even stand up to criticism. On the other hand, reason is constructed as a formula. Faith is basically something we believe in, like something we learn in church. Reason is something we learn in school, such as a math formula.

One argues that today we have a crisis of belief, not a crisis of faith. To explain this crisis, I will briefly examine the relationship between faith and belief, explain why cultural shift is important to note when trying to understand religious issues, go into detail on the three hallmarks of each of the two cultures by showing how they compare to each other, show how Tillich’s notion of correlation deals with this idea of culture and a crisis of belief, and explain how Marsh’s notion of a “theology of negotiation” (33) fits with Lonergan’s definition and allows him to argue that film can help us raise theological questions.

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.

In the report, The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel was the main focus of study and discussion on the strongest objections of Christianity, additionally, the book following Lee Strobel as he sought answers intentionally to disprove Christianity. However, there were circumstances which led to him proving the case as to why faith in God is justified. Accordingly, the main task of this report provided answers to the theological objections proposed in the book. Given these points, a conclusion arose on the contents of the book disputing whether the information in the book is valid, as the overall opinions on the book were confirmed.

The boat sank and he collected the insurance money without ever telling anyone about his suspicions of the boat not being in the best of shapes. He thought he had gotten rid of any doubts by overhauling the vessel. 'He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts'; (Voices of Wisdom, 348). On the last quote, what Clifford means by 'his (the shipowner) belief'; is his thoughts of his ship being in good sailing condition. According to Clifford, even if the boat had made it all the way, the shipowner would still be guilty because when an action is once done, it is right or wrong forever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The fact that he got his relieved from his worries by covering the holes instead of searching for evidence that would tell him that the boat was in good sailing condition gives him the guilty status.

The Dynamics of Faith is an in-depth look at what faith is from a theological perspective. Tillich seems to be replying to all of the writers we have read thus far and placing their arguments within the context of faith. Nowhere is this more apparent than on page 24, in his discussion of community. He rightly acknowledges that faith is usually seen in its sociologic setting. He then proceeds to sort out the different claims, saying that

Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties

In a time when faith and hard labor kept the majority of society alive, the introduction of reason by the Enlightenment was initially perceived as a threat. People had focused on their faiths and grasped the traditions and rituals of their dogmas. The Enlightenment introduced the possibility of faith and reason coinciding and cooperating to form a more civilized and equal society to replace the Old Regime, and the changes lasted far after the period of the Enlightenment.