William James 's View On Religion

The apparent conflict between faith and reason has brought much trouble to believers and non-believers alike through the centuries. Influences like Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason penned these words: “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith” (1965, B:XXX) and Soren Kierkegaard held that the absolute limit to which our reason repeatedly is

Pascal's Wager, is a common argument in favor of religious belief. It says "you should believe in God, because if you are right, you go to heaven, and if you are wrong, you lose nothing. But if you don't believe, and you are right, you gain nothing, but if you are wrong, you go to hell. Therefore, no matter how unlikely God's existence may be, you should believe.”

I do understand the argument that was made by Pascal and agree to some certain extent, but his initial suggestion is to live as “if we believe in God”. We as humans cannot simply decide to believe in something through an act of will. Instead, in order for one to believe that something is true, one needs an evidence for its truth. Pascal only asks us to believe in God with no evidence that such belief would be true. Therefore he asks us to believe without a reason, which shows that the argument he makes is quite weak. For example: If a person offers another person 2 million dollars for believing that the sky is red. Can that person sincerely belief in such a thing by simply just wishing to? Clearly

William James and the concept of religion In this paper, I would first like to summarize the content of William James’ The Varieties of Religious Experiences. Then, I will analyze the significance of James’ claims as it pertains to the study of religion. To state the conclusion of this paper here briefly, James’ focus on the inner experience of religious individuals reflects the very concept of religion as it came to be in the modern times; it is only due to the modern concept of religion as a category independent from other aspects of life that James is able to characterize the inner experience as the “essence” of religion. Therefore his analysis of religious experience demonstrates the effects of the modern concept of religion in our ways

Belief can be best described as confidence in the truth. Throughout the centuries, philosophers have argued over support for religious beliefs. Some, like W.K. Clifford, claim that beliefs need evidence and reason behind them. Others, like William James, would offer a philosophical justification for religious faith, and would argue against evidence and reason behind beliefs. After reading both sides of the argument, I lean towards James’s philosophical justification the most due to the fact that I too would argue against evidence and reason behind beliefs.

The first problem James tackles is genuine options. He disagrees with Clifford on the idea of genuine options. He believes that there are certain things which we cannot wait for efficient evidence before we make a claim. Those things are the ones where religious faith is intellectually acceptable. He states that genuine belief is living, forced and momentous. A living belief will be

I am arguing that Pascal’s Wager is significantly stronger of a rationale when more social factors are taken into consideration. In his time, Blaise Pascal formed the foundation of the Pascal’s Wager we know of today, posthumously in the form of ‘Infinirien’. Though this is more easily defensible then Pascal’ Wager, the modified version has garnered enough popularity and has enough similar that it is the target of most criticisms. Pascal came up with a theory of understanding the consequences of not believing in God versus those that came with believing in him. From his calculations he determined that since believing in God had the same result as not believing when God didn’t exist. When God did exist however, the consequences of not believing were dire and the reward for believing was infinite. Pascal tried to explain that believing in God was the rational decision when such infinite rewards of heaven and such punishment of hell are possibilities. Social implications are crucial to understanding how Pascal’s Wager might apply today and in countries of all different cultures. I will discuss three of the most common objections toward Pascal’s Wager and illustrate how considering just a few social factors make the decision to believe in God more rational then not. Then, I will explain how though there’s not enough evidence toward believing unswervingly, there is still enough positive implications that can warrant accepting your socially acceptable faith.

Pascal’s Wager, which is Pascal’s most potent philosophical argument in favor of “reasons of the heart” is based on probability theory , and uses decision theory , to argue that during the process of making religious choice, humans are better off using faith to believe in God rather than using rationality and choosing otherwise. In his book Pensées in which Pascal identify “wagering” with “believing,” Pascal is found to have stated: ‘We discover truth, not only by reasoning, but by feeling; and it is in this latter manner that we discover the first principles;’ and reasoning, instead of helping in matters of faith complicate these simple principles. To confuse humans. Pascal using this argument for faith conclude heart can supplement all

As a response to Clifford’s essay “The Ethics of Belief”, William James wrote his essay “The Will to Believe”. After proposing Clifford’s view, I will be arguing against his principle based on James’s argument. In his essay “The Ethics of Belief”, the philosopher and mathematician William Clifford claimed that “it is wrong, always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Evidence is very crucial for every belief.

There is always reasoning and experience in which can give enough evidence to lead an argument one way or another. James argues as if when we ponder on religious identity the options at hand will be in a perfect draw, stuck at 50/50. But there is always evidence to be learned and personal experience to be gained. The necessity of faith can be dissuaded by reasoning. As David Hume stated, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” I do not argue that there is evidence in which leaves no doubt, because as humans we cannot know for certain the origin and purpose (if any) of ourselves. But, the “faith” required by religions generally further requires the neglect of reason and experience, and James ignorantly talks of “the blessings of real knowledge” as if real knowledge is something unobtainable through science or evidence. Furthermore, James continually attempts to discredit the scientific community, portraying them as incapable of looking past their bias. Instead, I think James would benefit from asking, “why is the scientific community this way?” By including this bias James has made it clear that science cannot support his exception, as he essentially will not allow it. Science, or more specifically physics, is the attempt to understand the reason things are how they are, and not an attempt to discredit the possibility of religions. I find it very interesting he brings up science and the scientific community so

It is in W. K. Clifford’s essay The Ethics of Belief in which the author argues that a belief system based on anything but evidence is immoral. This argument is made in response to Blaise Pascal’s suggestion that it is practically reasonable to live as though God exists as there is no loss in the wager itself should God exist or not. The case of a ship owner is offered as an example to illustrate the point for genuine justification. Despite fears that his vessel may not be seaworthy, a ship owner puts those doubts aside and allows the ship, full of emigrants in search of a better life, to set sail. Having safely sailed numerous voyages and weathered many storms in the past, the ship owner felt confident in putting his trust in Providence.

In William James’s essay, The Will to Believe, he states that people have the will to either believe the truth or to not believe the truth. This truth has to be live, forced, and momentous. It has to be live, meaning that it is something possible for one to believe. It cannot be impossible. It has to be forced; one cannot avoid making a decision. One is faced with two options and then must decide between the two of them. It also has to be momentous; it must be a life changing decision that one makes. It is important enough to change the way one lives’ life. James view on religion is that the best things are eternal, and it is better to live believing these things than not. He calls this the Religious Hypothesis, and believes that tit is better of to believe these things than not. “The so-called

David and James began to walk towards David’s car. David looked at James and asked,” James is there anything else you need? “James just stood there staring into space. He stood there as if the weight of the whole world was on his shoulders. David placed his hand on James shoulders and they turned and exited the park. They began the long quiet walk to David’s Ford truck. They silently got into the truck and started the long drive towards Hano.

It is very clear that faith and reason happen to be some of the most important sources of authority upon which individual beliefs can rest. By definition, reason refers to the principles that are applied by an individual for purposes of carrying out methodological inquiry be it moral, religious, intellectual or even aesthetic. On the other hand, faith refers to that particular process that involves a given position towards a given claim that is not, at least currently, demonstrable by reason (Audi 20). As such, faith can comfortably be defined as a type of attitude or assent and it commonly understood to entail an act of commitment on the believers side. Additionally, religious faith happens to involve a certain belief that plays

In this paper, I discuss the continued debate of whether or not it is ever right to believe in anything without sufficient evidence.This topic is philosophically important, because everything we believe contributes and aids in the development of our own personal belief system, thereby determining our actions. From a very general perspective, this topic relates to a far larger philosophical issue and according to Andrew Chignell, a professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, “The central question is it ever or always morally wrong or epistemically irrational, or practically prudent to hold a belief on insufficient evidence?’1