Good and Bad Reasons for Believing

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.”

In life, there is a constant battle ensuing over faith and reason. Those two things are constantly feeding off of each other in someone’s mind when making a decision. Over time in which some say is a great conversation about history this battle is changing. The Great Conversation of history spans over many eras where the questions of faith and reason are always things battling for a spot in our minds, but they shouldn’t be in battle because they are very much dependent on the other. Among the time periods from Ancient Greece, the Enlightenment, and the 19th century, writers such as Socrates, Kant, and Martin Luther King Jr have looked at the issue of faith and reason.

(A) All claims with religious content and all religiously motivated actions and practices are subject to the same kind of rational scrutiny and evaluation as any other claim or form of behavior i.e., the religious and the secular are at parity as far as the jurisdiction of reason is concerned. By contrast, pure fideists reject (A) without comment; ratiocinative fideists reject (A) but attempt to explain their rejection, and conditional rationalists refuse to accept (A) until the kind of rational scrutiny to which religion is to be subjected is spelled out.

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

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.

The Dawkins chapter speaks about the debate between religion and science and how religious people refuse to even give science teachers and professors the time of day. Most of the time people will refuse to listen to what has been proven due to their religious beliefs. Evolution professors have even been threatened with the loss of their jobs. Even though, many professors have tried to explain that evolution is a fact and one of the greatest of God’s works, still their time is wasted. The pope and educated priests and professors of theology have been known to no longer have a problem with evolution because they understand that evolution is a fact and not intended to be an anti-religious study.

One comment I would make in response to this article is: Religion is either good or

William James explains his position on religious belief by relating his idea to that of Pascal’s. He does think that is reasonable to believe in God without evidence, but not based on Pascal’s wager which is to base your belief on cost-benefit analysis; James thinks this is wrong because it is not live. James does think it is permissible to believe without evidence when we have a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds. That is when our passional nature takes over and decides the matter. James states how when he is explaining passional nature he means “all factors of belief as ear and hope, prejudice and passion, imitation and partisanship, the circumpressure of our caste and set,” and then says that when we find ourselves believing we don’t know how or why. James begins his paper by explaining is stance on belief by writing that anything that may be proposed to our belief is a hypothesis. He goes on to explain that the decision of two hypotheses is an option. There are several options: living if both possibilities appeal as real possibilities for the agent, forced if it is unavoidable, and momentous if it is not trivial. He states that religion is a momentous option, and that “we are supposed to gain, even now, by our belief, and to lose by our non-belief, a certain vital good.” He then goes on to say that religion is also a forced option; we cannot remain skeptical and wait for a greater evidence to believe. However, he does say that

William Kingdon Clifford’s argument in “The Ethics of Belief” that it is morally wrong to form beliefs upon insufficient evidence has been widely debated. One such objection to Clifford is William James’s “The Will to Believe,” which argues, under certain circumstances, it can be morally justified to form beliefs without adequate evidence. In this paper, I shall argue that James’s position on belief is stronger than Clifford’s on the basis of being able to reveal more truths while not violating morality.

The Case for Faith, was written by Lee Strobel who at the time was an outspoken atheist. Strobel set out on a mission to disprove the Christian faith. Along the way, as he gathered information he was slowly convinced that there was truth to the religion. In result of his findings Strobel published three books to help explain his findings. In this book he discusses objections that arise in the minds of believers. Strobel discusses eight different objection, thoroughly explains them, and provides deep information to help resolve these objections. Some of the issues that he touched on are tilled; Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot, A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell, and I Still Have Doubts, So I Can't Be a Christian. Within each obligation Strobel includes Bible verses and professional explanations on objection at hand. The most beneficial sections are those where he gives simple analogies that can benefit anybody no matter where one is in the faith journey.

Though his writings have enjoyed public acclaim, Dawkins fails as an effective critic of Christianity for three basic reasons. First, the Christian faith he criticizes is a poorly drawn caricature of the real thing. Second, his critical arguments consistently fail to pass the rigor of logical analysis. Third, Dawkins refuses to take counter argument seriously, dismissing critics without responding to criticism that even his supporters recognize as legitimate. These qualities disqualify Dr. Dawkins as a serious opponent of Christianity.

James attempts to establish a will or right to believe. On the other hand, Pascal establishes reasons for logically believing God. This paper will discuss their individual arguments and proceed to show that Pascal’s argument is the more convincing argument of the two. 2. James James view was formulated in response to William Clifford’s view, who argued that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”

Since the 19th century, William Clifford and William James have been the foremost religious theorist and have attempted to answer significant creation and theological mysteries. However, Clifford and James have varying views on the belief debate, each formulating a rational argument of what the basis for belief should be. Clifford’s, Ethics of Belief and James’ The Will to Believe outline their respective arguments which are vastly similar and but have marked differences. Both articles will be examined for these similarities and difference and stated within this paper.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data