In William K. Clifford’s, “The Ethics of Belief (II),” he argues that humans must always question their conceptions and beliefs. At the beginning of this chapter, Clifford brings up the topic of citizens who do not want to question beliefs and would rather just follow them until they have been disproven. But he Clifford also states that this is a dangerous mindset to be in because if no one ever questions conceptions and beliefs, humans would be in a stagnant state as they would never progress and evolve. Towards the middle of this chapter, Clifford states that it is not only right and possible to question the beliefs and conceptions from previous generations, but we should even embrace it is as our duty to continue to question them. If we
It is said that man, to survive, has always needed something or some belief to hold on; be it science, religion or magic. Man without a belief lacks hope (Walker, 1997). Lack of hope makes a man vulnerable to unforeseen circumstances. To avoid this vulnerability man has been holding onto different belief systems.
Faith, defined as a strong belief in something which cannot be proven, has been argued over countless generations. Still, even without proof, individuals worldwide hold true to their faith each day. After studying faith and religion in texts written by scholars with varying backgrounds, it is easy to see faith is something which is widely disputed. Comparison of Sigmund Freud’s The Future of an Illusion and Paul Tillich’s Dynamics of Faith, fully displays the discrepancies in points of view on the function of faith, as well as the necessity of faith, in society; while the comparison of Viktor E. Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning and Karl Marx’s “on the Future of Religion,” demonstrate both similarities and differences
David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.
In Peter Elbow’s essay “The Doubting Game and Believing Game” he discusses the two types of games that an individual can use to look for the truth in a situation. The Doubting game, is when an individual believes everything is false, and prove each assertion wrong, and the Believing game, is the process where an individual believes that all assertions are correct, and go over each one separately. With both games, there are certain rules that must be followed.
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.
“The minute we have taken the backward step to an intangible view of our whole system of beliefs, proof, and rationalization, and seen that it works only, in spite of its pretensions, by taking the world mainly for granted, we are not in a place to contrast all these forms with an alternative reality. We cannot shed our normal responses, and if we could it would leave us with no means of conceiving a reality of any kind (Nagel, 1971; p. 723).”
In his lecture, “The Will to Believe,” William James addresses how one adopts a belief. There is a hypothesis and an option, where you choose between two live hypotheses. An option has the characteristics to be live or dead, forced or avoidable, and momentous or trivial. In his thesis, James argues how “our passional nature” must make our decisions about our beliefs when they cannot be certainly determined on “intellectual grounds,” however, this is not the case, we can always make the decision based on intellectual grounds. One can use Bayesian probability to gain some grasp of the situation and eventually to make a decision.
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.
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.
This paper will address the problem of skepticism. My focus will be exclusively on Global Skepticism as it is more controversial than Local Skepticism. The stance I am seeking to persuade you to take is one regarding the question of whether or not Global Skepticism is justified. In this paper I will discuss and analyze what other philosophers have said about the topic, my argument, how my opponents might object to my arguments, and how I respond to those objections. My hope is the conclusion to my argument will convince you that Global Skepticism is not justified and we can, in fact, come to ‘know’ things about our reality and obtain knowledge.
Having firmly established the distinction between religion and speculation, he next states that without religion, both praxis and speculation become barren and produce no fruit since religion is the sense for what is infinite. Without religion, he claims, the otherwise finite nature of thinking and of acting shrink to arbitrarity since they do not grasp at the universal intuitions of infinity and thus do not grasp at a true concept of the universe. Religion is, therefore, a necessary part of the triplet of thinking and acting if one is to hold the unified view of the universe which underlies Schleiermacher’s entire conception of reality.
William James was an American existentialist philosopher. His essay, “The Will to Believe” focused on why someone should believe in something that may not have definitive evidence. William James asserts in his essay that, “If your heart does not want a world of moral reality, your head will assuredly never make you believe in one.” I argue that this quote is used to defend believing in something that can’t be proven or disproven through science, i.e. God, and means that some options are self-fulfilling and need to be believed to make them real.
In William K. Clifford’s, “The Ethics of Belief (III),” Clifford argues the point that our beliefs cannot come from just our experiences; rather our beliefs must come from experiences and assumptions. More specifically, assuming the uniformity of nature, Clifford begins by introducing an example with a burning child who dreads fire. Clifford argues that this fear the child as cannot only come from experience because that is now a thing of the past. The child must therefore dread fire because he is assuming that the fire will burn him as it did the other day which is an example of assuming the uniformity of nature. Clifford then draws another example concerning the fact that the sun contains hydrogen.
If we question everything, we would end in no conclusion. We need to accept something at one point or another. In 419, Laura remembers her father reading Rupunzel to her when she was a child. As she grew, she was surprised of how," we surrender by inches... until one day when we're brushing our teeth, instead of Rupunzel plotting her escape we see a hermit staring back at us"(Ferguson 49). As a child, we are free of worry, but as we grow many responsibilities pull us from our childish viewpoint.
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.