Essay on The Ethics of Belief

The argument presented by William James in “The Will to Believe” covers theistic beliefs and also includes various philosophical issues as well as matters of practical life. James's primary concern is to argue that Clifford's Rule is irrational. According to Clifford's Rule, one should avoid error at all costs and ultimately risk the loss of certain truths. James claims that Clifford's Rule is just one intellectual strategy and then makes an argument to seek truth by any means available, even at the risk of error or being completely false. James is not arguing against conforming one's belief to the evidence. Nor is he arguing against the importance of evidence. His argument is against withholding beliefs whenever there is little evidence,

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 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 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.

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.

As I read these two articles I noticed many good points for each philosopher. W.K. Clifford made a good point saying that if don’t have sufficient evidence on a topic it could harm us and the people around us. He states that we should get sufficient evidence before we believe in something that could have an impact on our lives. He has a great example with the sailor if he would have good evidence that his ship was in great conditions to sail many people wouldn’t have suffered because of his mistakes. It made me realize that we tend to believe in a lot of things without sufficient evidence, and sometimes does believes can harm us and the people around us, and I know Clifford article is focused on religion because there are arguments in which

a) Christians believe many different things about God’s nature; due to the huge spectrum of Christians that there are. However, as a general rule they perceive God as being one of the following four things:

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

William James studied pragmatism through psychology and religion. James thought originally about philosophy; “The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants in our life, if this world formula or that world formula be the true one.” In James’ book The Varieties of Religious Experience he took a positive attitude toward religion yet opposed the idealist schools of speculative ideas (Choron 283). James was a very methodical man. “Truth happens to an idea” was another theory of James’. In order for an idea to be true an event

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

Epistemology is purposed with discovering and studying what knowledge is and how we can classify what we know, how we know it, and provide some type of framework for how we arrived at this conclusion. In the journey to identify what knowledge is the certainty principle was one of the first concepts that I learned that explained how we, as humans, consider ourselves to know something. The certainty concept suggests that knowledge requires evidence that is sufficient to rule out the possibility of error. This concept is exemplified in cases like The Gettier problem in the instance that we suppose (S) someone to know (P) a particular proposition. As Gettier established the Justified True Belief as a conceptual formula for knowledge, certainty

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

Clifford’s argument states that we shouldn’t believe anything upon insufficient evidence. Insufficient evidence is any type of evidence that has not been tested or proven for. Good sufficient evidence is accurately true without any doubts. He believes anything tested and proven builds up a society and strengthens it. In this paper, I will be discussing Clifford’s argument and the objections and Clifford’s responses to those objections.