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.”
The Hero's Journey in Young Goodman Brown Faith is accepting what you are taught or told without trying to prove or disprove it, rather than discovering it through experience. Those who believe in God have faith. It has not been proven that God exists; similarly, it has not been proven that humans are kind, honest, and good by nature. Young Goodman Brown is a character in "Young Goodman Brown," who leaves his known world in Salem village and travels an unknown road in a dark forest in the middle of the night, a common motif in literature better known as the Hero's journey, and is faced with obstacles. He must decide if he will carry his journey out till the end, or turn back and not learn the truth about himself and other
If God exists, he wants people to believe in Him through faith (If A, then B).
The difference between knowing and having rational grounds for believing is that knowing entails that something is 100% true while having rational grounds for believing something is true means that we see reason to believe it is true but we don’t know it is true. An example of rational grounds is like a kid believing in the tooth fairy. We know the tooth fairy isn’t real but we still tell the kid the tooth fairy is real. For the kid, every source they trust is telling them the tooth fairy is real so they believe in the tooth fairy. These are rational grounds for believing because though the tooth fairy is not real the kid has every reason to believe it is. In the case of God, it goes the exact same
Anselm- the ontological argument. Posteriori truth is a truth that requires experience to be known. Priori- such propositions are knowable prior to, or independently of, experience. 1. god is by definition the greatest being possible. 2. A being who fails to exist in the actual world (while existing in other possible
2. Believing and having faith in God will only resort to one thing—goodness. 3. Faith has something to do with one’s conception about God. 4. The existence of God remains a matter of faith since it’s difficult to "prove" God to someone who does not believe.
In today’s world, most people have had at least one encounter with religion throughout their lives. For some people, religion is a belief that they must live by and follow the rules that it imposes. Some just view it as a practice that is optional. However, some just view it as an illogical myth. One of the bases of its belief is the believe of an all might perfect spirit that created the world called god. Many people around the world believe this belief, however there is still a great rising number of people who are bothered by it. Many scientist and even philosophers would argue that it is an idea that has just grown over the years yet has no evidence to be proven. Although there are many scientific theories that propose the creation of the earth, majority of Americans still believe in god. The numbers are declining but there is still a very high amount of the population that believes in god. There are arguments that say god exists, others say that he does not exists, but I believe in the existence of god.
Whether god exists or not has been in discussion for thousands of years, and an important discussion. Whether it is rational to believe in god or not is another story, like believing in god itself, this topic has brought many discussions. It is one thing to discuss whether god is real or not and it is a complete other to discuss whether it is rational to believe in god or not. I believe that while there may not be any convincing evidence or arguments that God does exist, I do still believe that it is still rational to believe that god does exist. I think this because, believing in God is not simply just believing that he exists, but believing that it can bring good to our lives, we otherwise would not have. It teaches us to have a moral
God became a fictional character meant to scare children into proper form, a being meant to keep adults on a path of morality. It is not my views that faith in God is wrong in any manner. Faith has been the saving grace for many people and helped countless others find purpose in their life and I view that as a wonderful thing, something I wish for all to find in their life in some way or another, but to me, there is no god to drive my decisions, only
Similarly to this quote, with an interview I set up with one of my relatives who considers herself to be a secular humanist, when asked about God or a higher value existing she simply stated “If it has not been scientifically proven or I have seen it myself, I do not believe in any form of supernatural or unnatural
The Argument from Religious Experience The argument for God, based on personal Religious experiences, is an argument that cannot be refuted by others. While others may not have the ability to prove the existence of God, through another’s experiences, they also cannot disprove this existence. A person’s personal experiences are something that no other person can determine, nor argue. My experiences are my interpretations for the occurrences within my life, therefore, another person cannot determine what my true experiences are, or how they make me feel or believe. Kreeft points out that there really is no need for an argument for the existence of God, based on these personal experiences, since another person cannot determine another’s
Response to Bergmann============================= Bergman's Reformed Epistemology holds a distinction between rational and non-rational beliefs, as well as basic and non-basic beliefs; considering the rationality of religious beliefs to be something independent of their use as the basis of argument.
In the great words of Immanuel Kant, “God is a postulate of practical reason, a necessary component of moral thought. A moral person will always wish for the highest good, a world in which morality alone is sufficient to cause happiness” (Reszitnyk, 2016, slide 12). Essentially, morality is truly created upon our own ideas based on life experiences. If the existence of God is the core of morality, and is the objective moral fact, then He is the good that exists. Anselm of Canterbury, which means, “The essence of God, is a being than which no greater can be conceived. It is greater to exist than not to exist” (Reszitnyk, 2016, slide 10). Essentially, one can believe in God since He is the greatest one can conceive, and since God exists to one
There are some things in life you should believe in not because of evidence, but because of faith. Evidence is a very grey term in my book. There are two main types of evidence, hard and soft. Hard evidence are factual observed things that prove a case 100% or without a doubt. Soft evidence is evidence that is based on probability. For instance, let’s say you are trying to prove a suspect used a rifle to shoot a victim. Your evidence is the suspect’s finger prints on the rifle found at the scene. The evidence here is considered “soft” evidence. The fingerprints prove that the suspect had touched the gun, but not that he actually pulled the trigger. An example of hard evidence is if the suspect declined that he even touched the rifle at the scene. Because his fingerprints were found on it, this proves he in fact did touch the rifle. Not all cases are black and white, and its not always hard evidence that’s discovered. A court can use soft evidence if no hard evidence is determined. Making a decision based on soft evidence is based upon probability. The suspect’s fingerprints were found on the rifle, the suspect was seen in the area at the time of the shooting, and the suspect was seen purchasing ammunition for the rifle earlier in the day is all soft evidence. It does however (with no hard evidence at play) make it more probable that this suspect was in truth the
Miracles, by their very nature, defy the rational and the explainable. Stories such as the parting of the Red Sea in the Bible sound absurd and impossible, and yet, seemingly rational people believe such things occurred. Are these people delusional or vastly deceived? Some may argue that they are, however